THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.2883 OF 2025

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1455 of 2024 in S.C.No.90 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Mr.Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner/accused No.1 along with accused No.2 were facing accusation in Crime No.365 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202 and 120-B of I.P.C. Later, charge sheet was laid before the learned Sessions Court in S.C.No.90 of 2019 and the case was at the stage of trial. The trial Court had recorded the evidence of most of the prosecution witnesses and posted the matter for examination of LWs.9 and 13. Despite granting ample time, the prosecution failed to ensure the presence of these witnesses and hence, the trial Court closed the evidence of LWs.9 and 13. The prosecution filed an application vide Crl.M.P.No.840 of 2024 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking re-call of said witnesses. Vide order dated 28.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.840 of 2024 in S.C.No.90 of 2019, the trial Court had allowed the said application stating that learned counsel for the accused had not opposed the said application. But, the prosecution Court failed to serve summons and produce the witnesses within the stipulated time, which untimately resulted in closure of their evidence; that the prosecution once again filed another application vide Crl.M.P.No.1455 of 2024 in S.C.No.90 of 2019 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking re-call of LWs.9 and 13. The petitioner, while opposing the same, filed his counter affidavit. The trial Court, without assigning valid reasons, allowed the said application vide order dated 06.02.2025 subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the Legal Services Authority on or before 17-02-2025, and on such payment, directed the Office to issue summons for appearance of LWs.9 and 13 on the next date of hearing, failing which the petition was directed to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Criminal Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that repeated filing of similar applications for recall of witnesses despite closure of their evidence amounts to abuse of process of law. Relying on the decisions passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal1, K.K.Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy2 Vijay Kumar Vs. State of U.P.³, Mannan Shaikh Vs. State of West Bengal4, Anoop Singh Vs. State of Punjab5, he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if LWs.9 and 13 are re-called for the purpose of examination and that the trial Court, upon careful consideration of the material available on record appropriately passed the impugned order. Therefore, he states that interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted and seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that LW9/Mandal Revenue Officer, Vikarabad, R.R. District and LW13/Doctor are the crucial

AIR 1992 SC 604

5 (2022) SCC Online SC 1234

witnesses to the case. Therefore, upon considering the gravity of offences imposed against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that recalling LWs.9 and 13 for examination would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner has every right to cross-examine them during the course of trial. Hence, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order and the Criminal Petition is liable to b